bulletin vals-asla numér o 1 07
Bulletin suisse
de linguistique appliquée été 2018
Vereinigung für angewandte Linguistik in der Schweiz Associaziun svizra da linguistica applitgada Association suisse de linguistique appliquée Associazione svizzera di linguistica applicata
• Internationalizing curricula in higher education: quality and language of instruction
Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée © 2018 Centre de linguistique appliquée
No 107, 2018, III-IV • ISSN 1023-2044 Université de Neuchâtel
Table des matières
Internationalizing curricula in higher education: quality and language of instruction
Patrick STUDER
Introduction ... 1-5 Robert WILKINSON
Quality, internationalization, and English-medium
instruction: a Dutch perspective of higher education ... 7-25 Patrick STUDER
English in the age of comprehensive internationalization:
defining competence guidelines for teachers in higher
education ... 27-47 Àngels PINYANA
The lecturers' perspective on EMI quality ... 49-64 Sarah KHAN
Lecturing strategies of non-native EMI lecturers on an
International Business programme ... 65-82 Caroline CLARK & Marta GUARDA
Maintaining teaching and learning quality in higher
education through support of EMI lecturers ... 83-96 Curtis GAUTSCHI
EMI lecture quality parameters: the student perspective ... 97-112 Susanne GUNDERMANN & Gregg DUBOW
Ensuring quality in EMI: developing an assessment
procedure at the University of Freiburg ... 113-125 Debra ALI-LAWSON & Jacqueline BÜRKI
Organisational challenges and opportunities when
implementing an international profile ... 127-141
Stuart PERRIN & Michaela ALBL-MIKASA
English as a working language in a Transnational Education environment in China: ELF from the angle of
situated and cooperative cognition ... 143-157 Comptes rendus
Rabatel, A. (2017).
Pour une lecture linguistique et critique des médias: Empathie, éthique, point(s) de vue.
Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Compte rendu de Thierry Herman, Universités de
Lausanne et de Neuchâtel ... 159-163 Berthele, R. & Lambelet, A. (2018).
Heritage and School Language Literacy Development in Migrant Children.
Interdependence or Independence?
Second Language Acquisition: 119.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Compte rendu de Carol SUTER TUFEKOVIC, Zürcher
Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften ... 165-169
Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée © 2018 Centre de linguistique appliquée
No 107, 2018, 1-5 • ISSN 1023-2044 Université de Neuchâtel
quality and language of instruction Introduction
Patrick STUDER
ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Theaterstrasse 17, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland
patrick.studer@zhaw.ch
The higher education landscape of Switzerland is complex and has been changing constantly over the past decades. New university types have been established; traditional universities have adapted their focus to address trends brought forward by the Bologna process. One key development in recent years has been the increase in student and staff mobility through exchange and co- operation programmes and initiatives. This development has led to the establishment of internationalization as a key policy area in higher education, which has resulted in the creation of internationalized learning environments aimed at equipping students with skills they need in a globalized world.
In this context, an international research community has formed that has conceptualized policy areas with which this development can be described and addressed, such as internationalization at home, comprehensive internationalization or internationalization of the curriculum. While these terms cannot be used interchangeably, they all encompass a vision of higher education institutions in which internationalization is practised as "a commitment, confirmed through action" (Hudzik 2011: 6) that runs throughout all the mission areas of a university and which results in a fundamental transformation of practices in teaching and learning in higher education.
While this vision may seem straightforward in theory, it presents major difficulties in practice as it requires universities to set new priorities and to redefine their understanding of quality in research and education. This is a difficult task to accomplish, if we take into account the fundamental principles of quality we associate with higher education. Looking at internationalization from the perspective of higher education rankings, for example, we notice that the international outlook of institutions tends to be measured on the basis of a limited set of indicators, emphasising the international mix of faculty and students as well as international research co-operation. And when we look at the methodology of key ranking systems, we realise that internationalization, if it figures at all, counts little towards the overall reputation of a university. This limited perception and importance of internationalization in higher education not
only stands in contrast to the desiderata stated by the research community but also to the vision expressed by higher education policy-makers (European Commission 2013; de Wit et al. 2015).
One important reason for this reduced vision of internationalization in higher education rankings lies in the vagueness of terms such as 'comprehensive', 'at home' or 'internationalized'. And this vagueness, in turn, is rooted in internationalization as a phenomenon itself, which is primarily concerned with policy-making and not with the impact of policies on actors (Green & Whitsed 2015: 5). Yet it is programme directors, teachers and students who, in the end, 'live' the spirit of internationalization through their curricula, teaching performance and learning experiences. This is where the present edition comes in. It sheds light on the issue of quality in internationalized teaching and learning by thinking about how internationalization, in a comprehensive sense, can be translated on the ground, given institutional constraints and stakeholder views.
The papers in this edition summarize findings from an interdisciplinary research project that was carried out in Switzerland from 2016 to 2017. Two Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences (BFH and ZHAW) jointly submitted a proposal to a call by swissuniversities (2014) entitled Internationalization of Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences and Arts. The call was aimed strategically at proposals that sought to enhance the visibility of Swiss universities of applied sciences across borders through "purposeful measures" in their internationalization efforts. In particular, swissuniversities called for participating universities to establish "new and promising cooperative ventures" between Swiss higher education institutions and institutions abroad that would serve as
"models for developing and positioning universities of applied sciences across borders". With this explicit focus on universities of applied sciences as a case in point, swissuniversities acknowledged that efforts needed to be made, particularly in newer and regional universities in Switzerland, to develop their international expertise.
The project that was funded as a result of this call focused on the development of quality management parameters for international profiles. International profiles were defined, broadly, as internationalized study programmes, parts of programmes or optional elements in study programmes that, in line with European policy on internationalization (European Commission 2013: 6), were aimed at exposing "the non-mobile student majority to international approaches." Particular focus was placed on two areas of internationalization at home: First, emphasis was placed on study programmes in English, or English- taught programmes (ETPs), as English was assumed to constitute a "de facto part of any internationalisation strategy for learners, teachers and institutions"
(European Commission 2013: 6). The second focus identified for further study was the systematic integration of a global dimension into study programmes (Hunter, White & Godbey 2006; Deardorff & Hunter 2006). Since English-taught
programmes are particularly common in the Swiss higher education landscape (Wächter & Maiworm 2014: 38-39), however, much of the project's research effort was directed toward defining quality parameters in study programmes in which the primary element of internationalization was a change of the medium of instruction to English.
The project, which was managed jointly by ZHAW and BFH, foresaw the collaboration with partner institutions that brought specific expertise to the research themes and envisaged the creation of a sustainable network of institutions committed to the enhancement of quality in internationalization.
Original partner institutions were the Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg (Germany) and Università degli Studi di Padova (Italy). In the course of the project, other partner institutions joined the network, such as FH Joanneum Graz (Austria), Hochschule München (Germany), Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences (Finland), Universitatea de Vest din Timișoara (Romania), Universitat de Vic (Spain), and Xi'an Jiaotong – Liverpool University (China), resulting in a balanced mix of participating institutions, representing different university types, traditions, educational cultures and specialisations.
Focusing on English-taught programmes and, more broadly, on English as a lingua franca in higher education, the papers in the present edition, in particular, deal with questions of quality at the interface of internationalization and English as a medium of instruction and institutional use. Quality in higher education, as it pertains to the use of English, is conceptualized in this edition from different angles, ranging from policy-making, measuring and describing teaching performance, curricular implications, to student perceptions and the use of a different language in administrative contexts.
The authors of the papers in this volume have made use of various data from their respective cultural and institutional contexts. In addition, field research in one particular higher education institution in Switzerland was conducted that would serve as a joint data basis for analysis. The joint field research was carried out at Bern University of Applied Sciences (BFH) in the autumn semester of 2016/17. The programme studied in this field research, a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration programme, served as a case in point that would allow for illustration of how English-taught study programmes are run, structured and taught in Switzerland.
Bob Wilkinson's opening article sets the groundwork for understanding the complex interconnections between quality in higher education, internationalization and language from a policy perspective. Wilkinson (this volume) highlights in particular "aspects and factors that could be measured theoretically to monitor the quality of an internationally profiled EMI programme".
Patrick Studer continues Wilkinson's discussion by focusing on the translation of some of these ideas into quality parameters for teaching in a comprehensively internationalized environment. Studer describes the process involved in defining
and applying teacher observation parameters using data from the BFH Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. Sarah Khan explores a different facet of the discussion, looking more specifically at the range of lecturing strategies employed by the teachers involved in the field research and the implications these strategies may have for teacher training. In particular, Khan focuses on prompting, eliciting, signposting, emphasising, paraphrasing, evaluating, defining, checking comprehension and indicating prior learning.
While Studer and Khan look at the quality of teaching in English through the lens of experts observing teaching practices in internationalized study programmes, Gautschi, Pinyana and Ali-Lawson & Bürki shift their perspective to the perception of quality by teachers, students and the institution itself. Curtis Gautschi highlights the importance of students involved in the internationalized study programme as the central stakeholder in the classroom. In his paper, Gautschi compares student perceptions of quality to teacher observation parameters by experts, looking for common ground and divergence.
Àngels Pinyana emphasizes the perspective of the lecturer involved in quality evaluation, analysing how lecturers perceive quality parameters in an English- taught programme, and whether these parameters can be observed in class.
Both Gautschi and Pinyana use data from the joint field research at BFH. Debra Ali-Lawson and Jacqueline Bürki present institutional considerations made in the run-up and development of the English-taught programme in Business Administration at BFH. Ali-Lawson & Bürki show how higher education institutions may typically respond when they are put under pressure to internationalize their operations.
The research presented in this volume has been inspired further by previous research activities at the intersection of internationalization, quality and English as a language of instruction. Previous research activities presented in this edition were conducted in the framework of the LEAP (Learning English for Academic Purposes) project at the University of Padova and the EMIQM project at the University of Freiburg (Germany). Caroline Clark and Marta Guarda, in their critical review of findings from the LEAP project in Italy, point to the importance of support mechanisms for lecturers that facilitate student-centred learning and the need for the systematic inclusion of students into questions concerning the quality of English-medium instruction. Susanne Gundermann and Gregg Dubow extend the discussion to quality management by presenting an innovative approach to assuring the quality of English-taught programmes at the University of Freiburg. In Freiburg, English-taught programmes can undergo a university-internal certification process based on individual lecturers' teaching performance leading to a quality seal.
Stuart Perrin and Michaela Albl-Mikasa, in a co-operation project between Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and ZHAW, conclude the discussion by looking at the use of English as a lingua franca in an institution's administration. Using the
example of minute-taking in relevant committee meetings in an all English- speaking university in China, the paper emphasizes the importance of operational and structural processes guiding the use of language in lingua franca settings in higher education.
REFERENCES
Deardorff, D. K. & Hunter, W. (2006). Educating Global-Ready Graduates. International Educator, 15(3), 72-83.
De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L. & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalisation of Higher Education.
Brussels: European Union.
European Commission (2013, July 11). European higher education in the world. COM 2013 499.
Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0499.
Green, W. & Whitsed, C. (2015). Critical Perspectives on Internationalising the Curriculum in Disciplines.
Reflective Narrative Accounts from Business, Education and Health. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization. From Concept to Action. Washington, D.C.:
NAFSA, The Association of International Educators.
Hunter, W., White, G.P. & Godbey, G.C. (2006). What Does It Mean to Be Globally Competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267-285.
Swissuniversities (2014, December). Internationalisation of Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences and Arts. Factsheet. Retrieved from https://www.swissuniversities.ch.
Wächter, B. & Maiworm F. (2014). English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education. The State of Play. Bonn: Lemmens.
Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée © 2018 Centre de linguistique appliquée
No 107, 2018, 7-25 • ISSN 1023-2044 Université de Neuchâtel
medium instruction: a Dutch perspective of higher education
Robert WILKINSON Maastricht University Language Center
P.O. Box 616, 6200 Maastricht, The Netherlands bob.wilkinson2010@gmail.com
Des changements marquants dans le contexte de l'enseignement supérieur conduisent à des modifications de la conception de la qualité. Un de ces changements a été l'internationalisation de l'enseignement supérieur en réponse à la mondialisation. Des programmes à profil international ont été établis, souvent enseignés dans une autre langue. Les étudiants, les enseignants et les autres parties prenantes ont intérêt à démêler la qualité de ces programmes. La qualité elle-même, cependant, est un concept insaisissable, en fonction de l'acteur concerné. Sur la base d'exemples provenant des Pays- Bas, diverses conceptualisations de la qualité sont discutées, conduisant à un modèle de qualité qui est appliqué aux programmes profilés au niveau international. Deux risques principaux apparaissent. Au fur et à mesure que les critères de contrôle de qualité deviennent plus nombreux et plus précis, la praticabilité de la gestion de la qualité est entravée. Plus les critères de qualité deviennent transnationaux, moins les parties prenantes nationales concernées peuvent les percevoir localement.
Mots clés:
Qualité, internationalisation, éducation supérieure, Pays-Bas, programmes en anglais.
Keywords:
Quality, internationalization, higher education, Netherlands, English-medium instruction.
1. Introduction1
The higher education landscape has changed dramatically over the past half- century, entailing a significant change in what quality means. It is valuable to remind ourselves of these changes as they impact on how quality may be construed with respect to international profiles, especially where educational programmes are delivered through an additional language. Moreover, we readily use terms without always being clear about what we mean, such as
"international profile" or "additional language". We may unwittingly assume that our interlocutors share our own fuzzy conception. I shall return to the definitional dilemmas with respect to quality later.
Until the middle of the twentieth century, higher education could be seen as the exclusive domain of an established aristocratic and profession class that, while pursuing enlightened scientific knowledge, was able to perpetuate the elitist system. Even though the nineteenth century had seen a broadening to the professional classes (the creation of "red brick" universities in the UK, for
1 The author is most grateful to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their painstaking diligence and their insightful comments on the manuscript.
example), and the establishment of the research university, such as on the Humboldtian model, higher education remained exclusive. Attempts to expand further to other sectors of the population would entail a dilution of the quality, if indeed the term quality was used in this context (see Altbach et al. 2009; Trow 2007).
The massive expansion of higher education since the mid-twentieth century progressively led to a steadily greater proportion of young people enjoying the right to higher education, with some countries even making it an automatic right if students had the appropriate secondary-school leaving qualifications (e.g.
France, see Duru-Bellat 2015; Picard 2009). Meanwhile, the older established universities could retain their elitist perception and preserve the exclusive conception of quality.
The landscape of tertiary education is affected by numerous economic and social factors, such as globalization, competition and marketization (Harvey &
Williams 2010: 4). Universities are challenged to cope with the consequences (see Knight 2008; Marginson & van der Wende 2007). Part of their response is to demonstrate the quality of their education.
Quality has been described as an 'elusive' concept (e.g. Neave 1994: 115) and its interpretation will vary according to who perceives it. This contribution attempts to unravel different conceptions of quality regarding higher education.
In doing so, it focuses on quality with respect to the education that universities provide. Except occasionally, it does not consider quality in relation to universities' other function, research. This paper contributes to a volume concerned with internationalization, in particular the quality management of international profiles of higher education institutions. I draw upon the Dutch context as the Netherlands-Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO) was among the first to offer, alongside its accreditation process for Dutch and Flemish universities, a distinctive quality feature for internationalization. I take as an assumption that the procedure for the award of the distinctive feature may be relevant for other countries, including Switzerland. In the Netherlands and Flanders, the distinctive feature may be awarded at programme or institutional level. In this regard, the example of Maastricht University is presented as it was one of the first to be awarded the distinctive feature internationalization at institutional level.
2. Quality
2.1 What is quality in higher education?
Quality in higher education is concerned with both the two core roles of universities (Green 1994: 8), the provision of education and the conduct of research. As mentioned above, since this paper is concerned with education,
much of the following discussion regarding quality may not apply to universities' research role.
In their education role, universities are concerned with teaching and learning. In order to assess quality, it is necessary to take account of inputs and outputs, as well as the processes of teaching and learning. Universities are likely to have to meet the conditions of national and transnational quality assurance systems, which may entail meeting different, even conflicting requirements. Moreover, the cost involved may also be a cause for concern. In some cases, e.g. Maastricht University, individual faculties may be encouraged to seek international accreditation, on the grounds that national (re-)accreditation becomes "less intense" (Jan Vijge, Maastricht University internal audit, personal communication, 12 May 2016). A second concern is that quality is "an elusive concept" (Green 1994: 12): How can we measure quality objectively if we do not know what it is?
Before attempting to clarify the concept of quality, I should briefly touch on a broad distinction that sometimes confuses discussions of quality, that is the distinction between quality assurance and market-oriented quality. Quality assurance fundamentally implies evaluation by experts, such as in a peer review system. Essentially that suggests subjective judgements, since one may wonder what qualifies the experts to make their judgements. Should one ask 'experts' from other universities? Should 'experts' from 'semi-autonomous' independent commissions be recruited? The issue of how the comparison is conducted arises too. For example, in the Netherlands and Flanders, the quality of internationalization is compared to the national 'average'; hence quality is that which stands out. Quality assurance thus raises questions of integrity and trust, not to mention quis custodis custodes. It is moreover suspect in a time of higher education competition. In contrast, market-oriented quality is based on the use of performance indicators (Ball & Wilkinson 1994). However, the challenge here is to determine what should be a performance indicator. As Elton (1987) commented, "what is easily measurable is a performance indicator". As Dochy et al. (1990: 136-137) note, effective performance indicators are related to institutionally defined functions, and they serve as indicators of the extent to which institutional goals are achieved. For effectiveness, they depend on the valid operationalization of what they intend to indicate, and that they can indeed be measured and interpreted in a reliable and correct way. At their simplest, performance indicators do provide a rough and ready guide to the health of an educational system.
2.2 Quality: conceptual definition
It is not easy to define the concept of quality. It is an elusive, slippery, value- laden term (Green 1994: 12). Essentially, it is a multi-faceted, philosophical concept (compare the discussion in Schindler et al. 2015: 4). Broadly we can
construe four conventional understandings of quality. The first, the traditional understanding of quality, connotes the provision of a service or product that is distinctive and special, and that confers status on the owner or user. It implies extremely high standards of production, delivery and presentation, and using scarce resources, usually at great expense. Ultimately, it implies exclusivity.
Products such as Rolex watches, high-end perfumes, and distinctive champagnes would fall under this concept of quality.
In higher education, this traditional concept of quality is visible in the attention to the exceptional and excellence (Newton 2006). The evidence lies in practices like benchmarking, league tables, rankings, and the use of a 'gold standard'.
Quality may also focus on consistent maintenance of perfection where concern shifts to measuring process standards rather than outcome standards. In this conception quality is a mechanism to monitor the processes of or through assessment, accreditation, audit, or external examination and suchlike (see Harvey 2006; Harvey & Green 1993).
A second conventional understanding implies conformance to standards, whereby the product or service meets required characteristics. Standards are laid down, either by a government authority or a professional or international body (e.g. IEEE2), and the product or service must meet these to 'qualify' for the label. It is a static model of quality, where quality is defined in terms of what can be measured. In higher education, we can see quality conforming to standards as a combination of three different types of standards (see Newton 2006):
academic standards that measure ability to meet a specified attainment; service standards that are devised to assess the level of service provided; and quality standards which reflect norms in terms of formal statements about expected practice (see ENQA3 quality standards, ESG 2015).
The third understanding is where a product or service is deemed fit for purpose. In this case, quality is judged in relation to the extent to which a service or product meets its stated purpose. This is a developmental or dynamic model of quality, in that the purposes can change over time. In higher education, one can relate this concept of quality to employability and it may show itself in institutional mission statements. However, a prior question for higher education is precisely what the purpose of it is. Different stakeholders, such as government, students, employers, academic management, and academic staff, are likely to give conflicting answers. Quality as fit for purpose is basically a stakeholder-related concept. The quality of the service or product is judged against the costs of the investment by the stakeholder. Quality measurements will include performance data such as student retention and graduate employment.
2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association.
3 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
The fourth understanding is concerned with meeting customers' needs. In this conception, the challenge is to translate the future needs of customers and users into measurable characteristics. However, the problem in higher education is exactly who the customer is. Here, an overlap with the previous understanding is evident in that higher education has to meet the needs of different stakeholders, some of whom can clearly be conceived as customers, whereas others would not be.
However, quality can also be conceived as one of transformation (Newton 2006; Harvey & Williams 2010: 5), in which the learning process empowers students, enabling them to develop. The transformative concept can also be seen when changes in the institution enable better learning.
In summary, quality is concerned with judgements of attainment, service, and expected practice. It can be construed as relative to sets of stakeholders (i.e.
variable); the efficient and effective running of a mechanism (a process); or as a theoretical concept. Schindler et al. (2015) reviewed the literature on the definition of 'quality' in higher education, noting that there had been little change since the 1990s. There seems to be some kind of agreement that quality is a multifaceted concept and which aspects you wish to choose depends on who you are, what your stake is, and what you want to do or achieve with the concept.
They classified quality definitions under four categories: purposeful (products and services conform to the mission or vision, standards, etc.); exceptional (products and services achieve distinction, exclusivity, through high standards);
transformative (products and services effect positive change in student learning and professional potential); and accountable (institutions are accountable to stakeholders for use of resources and delivery of products and services). Schindler et al. (2015) noted that quality is measured through sets of indicators (see above), referring in particular to administrative indicators, such as developing a mission or vision, achieving internal or external standards and goals, or procuring resources for optimal functioning; student support indicators regarding the availability and responsiveness of services, for example in addressing student complaints; instructional indicators, measuring the relevancy of educational content and the competence of instructors; and student performance indicators, such as student engagement with curriculum, faculty, staff, and increases in knowledge, skills, abilities that lead to gainful employment. Schindler et al. (2015) constructed a conceptual model of quality in higher education on the basis of their review (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Conceptual model of quality. Schindler et al. (2015: 7). Reproduced with permission of the authors.
Schindler et al.'s (2015: 7) model starts in the centre from the perspective of the stakeholder. The way quality can be defined depends first and foremost on the stakeholder. The next circle stipulates four broad conceptualizations of quality, while the outer circle specifies examples of quality indicators that could be used to assess the conceptualizations. Schindler et al. (2015: 7) emphasize that the model depicts "a multifaceted approach to defining quality, which requires eliciting stakeholder perspectives to develop a broad conceptualization of quality and to accurately select specific indicators to measure that conceptualization of quality".
Essentially, quality monitoring is relative to and depends on the higher educational institution involved. This principle underlies the recommendations and guidelines in the revised European Standards and Guidelines (ESG)4 adopted by Ministers responsible for higher education in the European Higher Education Area in 2015 (ESG 2015). Quality remains essentially "intangible",
"the result of interaction between teachers, students and the institutional leaning environment" (ESG 2015: 7).
4 Authors: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA); European Students' Union (ESU); European University Association (EUA); European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE); in cooperation with: Education International (EI);
BUSINESSEUROPE; European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR).
3. Principles, standards, criteria underlying quality management in the Netherlands
Instead of describing the ESG generally in detail, I turn to the Netherlands and show how the ESG are interpreted in this country. The Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO) follows ENQA guidelines, focusing on 'quality enhancement' rather than 'quality assurance'. In this sense, the NVAO guidelines (see also NVAO 2016) can be construed as transformative.
Accreditation takes place at two levels, institutional level and programme level.
In addition, the NVAO operates accreditation in terms of distinctive quality features, e.g. internationalization, on which I focus further in this paper. It is a relative judgement: one institution is compared with other Dutch higher education institutions. Accreditation is based on principles similar to ESG, such that institutions have primary responsibility; there is respect for the diversity of systems, etc.; attention is paid to the development of a quality culture; and account is taken of needs and expectations of students and all stakeholders.
This is also in line with the principles set by the European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA 2015). From the principles, the NVAO sets out standards, and then criteria against which the standards can be measured.
Quality is measured through a lengthy procedure involving self-evaluation, internal audit, and a critical reflection (note that for the NVAO distinctive feature internationalization, the critical reflection must be written in English). The NVAO then establishes an assessment panel (again note that for the NVAO distinctive feature internationalization, the panel must include two experts with an 'unquestionably international profile', which is not narrowly defined). The panel conduct a site visit, and then submit their recommendations. Finally, the NVAO makes its decision. It is likely that the processes in the Netherlands resemble those of other EHEA5 countries.
The Netherlands does not have a separate system for measuring the quality of programmes where instruction is in an additional language6, such as EMI programmes. They will be assessed on the same basis as programmes in Dutch, although naturally comment would be made about the use of the language of instruction. All fourteen Dutch universities implement the University Teaching Qualification (better known by its Dutch acronym BKO, or Basis kwalificatie onderwijs) as a requirement for all academic teaching staff. The intention is to guarantee the quality of teaching (see for example Leiden University's Faculty of Humanities, Universiteit Leiden 2017a). The BKO does not specifically measure the quality of a teacher's English, but since it includes
5 European Higher Education Area.
6 The term "additional language" itself can be considered contested, generating different connotations according to context, see for example De Angelis (2007), Leung (2001), and Leung
& Creese (2010).
a portfolio of the teacher's work, this may well be in English if the academic is teaching through English. Dutch universities may offer additional quality qualifications for teaching through English (see also the example of Universiteit Leiden 2017b). The assessment may not be as detailed as the TOEPAS (Test of Oral English Proficiency of Academic Staff) developed in Denmark (Kling &
Stæhr n.d., see also Dimova & Kling 2015), although the combination with the BKO portfolio which includes a self-reflective report and the qualification in English may be seen as equivalent (see Driessen et al. 2006, on the validity of self-reflection in a portfolio).
4. Quality of internationalization – the Dutch practice
As mentioned above, the NVAO system of accreditation in the Netherlands also offers a quality assessment of distinctive features, such as the degree to which an institution is international. The assessment of internationalization follows the framework set out by the European Consortium for Accreditation7 (ECA 2015).
It is conducted according to five standards and may be conducted at the level of the institution as a whole or at the level of a programme. The procedure is similar to that for accreditation. It is valuable to comment on the standards against which the institution is rated.
At institutional level, standard 1 specifies that there is a clear and shared vision on internationalization, supported by internal and external stakeholders, and linked to the quality of education. Standard 2 mandates an institutional policy that enables the realization of the vision. This policy includes, among other matters, specification of international and intercultural learning outcomes, with respect to teaching and learning and the staff and students. Language, however, is not necessarily a specification. As Maastricht University (2012: 5) indicated in its submission for the distinctive feature internationalization: "Language proficiency is not regarded as a goal in itself, but as an enabling competence and a tool that facilitates communication in the university's international setting."
In terms of Schindler et al.'s (2015) model, the NVAO's internationalization would fit into the purposeful conception of quality. However, internationalization is measured "against" the other institutions in the country (Netherlands), that is, a kind of national average. A university or programme with special distinction for internationalization stands out from the others. The implication is that not every university/programme can acquire the distinction. Thus, it would fit into the
"exceptional" or "exclusive" category overall, but, when we look at the standards, we do not see features of the exceptional category.
Standard 3 specifies a demonstration of the extent to which the policy is realized, for example the degree to which students are prepared for the global
7 The European Consortium for Accreditation comprises 18 members, quality assurance agencies, from eleven countries. Switzerland is not a member (ecahe.eu, accessed 2 May 2018).
labour market. Evidence for this would be the international elements and learning outcomes, as well as extracurricular activities with an intercultural and international focus. Further demonstration would lie in the language courses for students, the activities of career services, the existence of a relevant diploma supplement, as well as evidence from alumni, for example where they are working. In this case, the accountable and purposeful conceptions of quality seem to apply. Moreover, an institution would have to demonstrate an international profile in their education and research, which would include how it recruits and welcomes international students as well as the scope of international education projects, international research, and the extent of internationalization among the staff. Even this evidence may not be sufficient.
The institution also has to demonstrate its social and global engagement (see Watson & Temple 2009). This will include research initiatives and institutes with societal relevance, as well as student initiatives and activities with societal relevance. In this case, we can see the transformative conception of quality coming into play.
The fourth and fifth standards concern improvement and integration strategies.
An institution can demonstrate the inclusion of internationalization in its internal quality assurance system, and internationalization is effectively integrated into the organization and the decision-making structure. In both cases, this evidences a purposeful conception of quality.
It should be clear that the assessment of quality of internationalization is subjective based on the recommendation of visiting experts. One quality assessor (reported by Jan Vijge, Maastricht University internal audit, personal communication, 12 May 2016) was quoted as saying, "You spend two to three days visiting a university and usually find the opinion you formed in the first 20 minutes doesn't change."
5. English-medium instruction
When we switch the language of instruction in higher education, we encounter some definitional dilemmas. There is a plethora of terms that have been used to describe the context. Although the over-arching term CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is widely used in primary and secondary education (Wolff 2009; see also Mehisto et al. 2008), two other terms predominate in higher education: ICLHE (Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education, e.g. Wilkinson 2004), partly because the higher education learning context differs significantly from primary and secondary education, and the dual focus on content and language goals characteristic of primary and secondary CLIL may be unequal, with content goals dominating. The second term is EMI (English-Medium Instruction), which has arisen because English is
by far the commonest additional language of instruction. EMI8 may or may not specify language learning goals; indeed, many programmes, especially at Master's level, may denote learning of disciplinary content through English without any specified language learning goals (e.g. Coleman 2006; Doiz et al.
2013: 216-217). The goal of an EMI programme is the teaching and learning of disciplines through English as the language of instruction. Content is paramount, and language learning may or may not be a goal. This contrasts with ICLHE, where language learning goals are also prescribed, and where there is likely to be collaboration between content teachers and language teachers, sometimes involving team teaching. The aim in ICLHE is precisely to integrate the content and the language, which may for example generate a collaborative approach to how the disciplinary language works in the community of practice (Wenger 1998) of the relevant discipline. However, in her analysis of the English-medium paradigm, Schmidt-Unterberger (forthcoming 2018) argues that most integrated university programmes are best encapsulated under the term EMI which may be supported by embedded or adjunct courses in English for specific or academic purposes.
Teaching through the medium of an additional language began at Maastricht University in 1987 as described in Wilkinson (2013). It began as one small multilingual programme in the Faculty of Economics but gradually spread across the university to other faculties. It was not a planned process in that there was an end-goal to establish EMI as the dominant instructional medium in the university9; it was rather a series of reactions to opportunities and threats.
Wilkinson has categorized five phases of EMI at Maastricht: cross-border, Europeanization, consolidation, globalization and monetization. Unterberger10 (2014) found a similar pattern at the Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien/Vienna University of Economics and Business, but also detected a sixth phase which she termed profiling. At Maastricht, there was a period when language goals were deemed critical components of programmes, especially during the Europeanization and consolidation phases (see Fig. 2). Since then, however, the programmes through English fall more under the term EMI, in that language learning is seen as an enabling goal, not an end-goal. It is not "dual-focused"
(Marsh 2002: 10).
As indicated earlier, the process of globalization, characterized as the meshing of myriad factors and influences such as mobility, trade, migration,
8 There are several other acronyms denoting more or less the same concept, although with slightly varying connotations: ETP (English-Taught Programmes, e.g. Wächter & Maiworm 2008), EMP (English-Medium Programmes, Unterberger 2012), EMT (English-Medium Teaching, Coleman 2006). Dafouz-Milne & Smit (2014) coined the term EMEMUS (English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings) to cover the wide heterogeneity of applications of English as the instructional language in universities.
9 More than half the programmes at Maastricht University are taught through English.
10 Now known as Schmidt-Unterberger.
harmonization of rules, and rankings, is arguably a principal reason for the rise of EMI programmes. As Marginson & van der Wende (2007: 4) note, universities are not objects of globalization, but in practice agents of globalization. Altbach (2004: 5-6) emphasizes the transformative process of globalization in that it meshes influences from many sources and transforms national systems and institutions. Internationalization, on the contrary, denotes the ways in which institutions respond to, cope with and manage globalizing factors and influences, thus encompassing processes of policies, practices, and beliefs.
Figure 2: Phases and motivations for EMI as identified at Maastricht University, Netherlands (Wilkinson 2013: 9); extended by Unterberger (2014: 153) in her study of Vienna University of Economics and Business. The dates refer to the start of the phase at Maastricht University.
According to Maiworm & Wächter (2014: 38), EMI in Europe remains small, with less than six percent of students in the European Higher Education Area enrolled in full-time EMI programmes. They report an S-shaped growth pattern, with the rate of growth highest in south-west Europe with eight times more programmes than in 2007, but with growth plateauing in some previous growth areas. While the Academic Cooperation Association's (ACA) study, coordinated by Wächter and Maiworm (2014), only surveyed programmes fully taught through English, other variants of EMI programmes also exist including programmes where the language is both the means and the target, as well as programmes that may be bilingual or multilingual (see also Wilkinson 2017).
Maastricht University presents a practical example for probing the quality monitoring of its international profile. While initially content and language development were seen as structured goals, with language both a medium and
a target, by the early 2000s critical mass could be said to have been reached, in that the quality of local students and international students 'seemed' "good enough" in English. No definition was ever given of "good enough". We may presume that this was 'measured' for example by a low number of complaints about the quality of English and by the relative degree of success in passing exams. We can place the change at the time that English became the medium of instruction in many programmes where the only explicit linguistic target was the development of academic writing skills. Moreover, little or no attention was paid to students' first language (L1). In terms of the European Union's policy for all citizens to develop their competences in their mother tongue plus two foreign languages, MT + 2 (European Commission, 2008), Maastricht University has moved in its international programmes from MT + 2 to MT + ENG + 1 to ENG + MT (± 1), always assuming that students' competences in their mother tongue do not erode (but see Wilkinson & Gabriëls 2018: 352, whose interviewees do report first language erosion).
In the current conception of EMI programmes at Maastricht, it is appropriate to look at how quality is conceived and measured. The most important aspect is the identification and measurement of learning outcomes. These will of course be largely programme-dependent. A second critical aspect is student graduation times (or throughput time), measuring what percentage of students graduate within the time frame expected for the programme. A third key aspect is student graduate employment and the length of an unemployment or job-seeking period.
Fourthly, attention is paid to regular student satisfaction surveys, both internal faculty surveys and those conducted periodically by contracted outside agencies. Note is also taken of the complaints received about a course, as well as how those complaints are dealt with. A fifth key point is the academic staff's perception of the quality of the students. Finally, the staff's competences in English are monitored, as well as recruitment, especially from among international PhD students. These measures are largely quantitative and can be categorized under Schindler et al.'s (2015) purposeful category of quality management. The above list pays little attention to qualitative aspects of the quality measurement of learning programmes. Here, we would be drawn to the throughput of programmes, that is teaching and learning processes. This would cover the optimal design of programmes and courses, whether the teaching and learning approaches do reach the learning goals, whether alternative approaches might yield superior outcomes, as well as looking into the less tangible aspects such as the student-teacher relationship in that a more empathetic learning environment is suggested to be conducive to better outcomes (see for example Mykkonen et al. 2015).
At the programme level, there are principally four groups of factors that affect programme quality (summarized in Fig. 3): student factors, such as entry and exit competences, motivation, and cultural background; teacher factors, such as content expertise, teaching competences, and multicultural teaching
competences; programme design factors, such as the conceptual design of the programme and its implementation, the use of student-centred approaches, and the methods employed; and institutional contextual factors, such as location and history, services provided, and the scope and depth of the employment market the institution serves. The list is not exhaustive.
Figure 3: Groups of factors mediating quality at programme level
Assessing and monitoring quality of an international profile is thus a complex and dynamic process, even if it is limited to EMI programmes. The project,
"Developing Quality Management Parameters for International Profiles at Universities of Applied Sciences", for which this paper was written, is an example of an approach to master this complex process. The project aimed to develop and test quality management parameters that would aid institutions in grounding their participation in an international programme of excellence (see Studer, this issue). However, if we wish to assay quality in international profiles in EMI programmes alone, we cannot merely take account of the international dimensions of the programme. We have to measure all aspects, on the grounds that the whole makes up more than the parts, and ostensibly non-international components may have catalytic effects on the international dimensions. Biggs (2001: 222) noticeably cites a quote from Seymour (1993): "because quality resides not in any one performance indicator, but in the way the system as a whole works, individual indicators do not give the picture of the whole, which is what matters". The same may apply by extension to limited groups of indicators.
In the following, I take a knowledge-skills-attitude (KSA) approach to the competences among students and teachers that would form part of a measurement instrument for quality in an internationally profiled EMI programme. Fig. 4 lists the competences that could be assessed for students
and teachers, whereas Fig. 5 notes a selection of factors related to the programme design and the institutional context.
Many other skills could be added to this list of competences (Fig. 4). For instance, for students it may well be important to monitor employment skills, career skills, and lifelong learning skills. The items in bold relate to those that are assumed to impact most likely on the quality of the international profile of an EMI programme, especially those under teacher competences.
Categorizing the factors where internationalization plays a key role leads to quite an intricate patchwork of aspects to measure or judge. We can deduce quality (of the programme, institution, teacher or student) as deriving from the interaction of these factors and likely with other factors too. It should be borne in mind that many of the factors that would relate to any teaching and learning in higher education (e.g. in an L1 context) also apply, but they are not necessarily included here.
A challenge facing those constructing a set of quality management parameters for international profiles is that the criteria will inevitably overlap. The process of criteria development will aim to minimize this overlap so that two criteria do not tap the same factors (see Studer, this issue). The objective for quality management parameter development in this case is to broaden the number of criteria to as many as are needed to cover the international elements of quality management in international profiles, but to then pare them down to as few as are practical to implement. If the criteria employed are at too high a level of detail, they will become unworkable. Arguably, too detailed criteria are unnecessary for the quality measurement of an international profile.
Students
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
▪ Academic disciplinary knowledge/domain(s)
▪ Language of
instruction/learning
▪ Academic tasks/requirements
▪ Academic/professional vocabulary/terminology
▪ Discourse & academic cultural conventions in disciplines
▪ Challenges/problems/issues as seen in other
cultures/languages
▪ Etc.
▪ Information literacy and documentation skills
▪ Critical thinking skills
▪ Analytical skills (interpreting, synthesizing)
▪ Evaluation skills
▪ Mathematical literacy
▪ ICT skills
▪ Self-assessment skills
▪ Communication skills (reporting, presenting, disseminating)
▪ Interpersonal skills
(networking, teamworking)
▪ Intercultural skills (working with others in different languages, cultures, competences)
▪ Etc.
▪ Approaches to learning (deep, surface)
▪ Conceptions of learning (low [knowledge transmission], high [knowledge transforming])
▪ Motivation (intrinsic, instrumental, utility, etc. (Pintrich 2003))
▪ Perseverance
▪ Willingness, curiosity, interest
▪ Cultural, social, language, academic differences
▪ Etc.
Teachers
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
▪ Academic discipline(s)/
domain(s)
▪ Teaching discipline(s) (e.g.
how to order information)
▪ Language of discipline
▪ Language knowledge (e.g.
pronunciation)
▪ Academic/professional vocabulary/terminology
▪ Discourse & academic cultural conventions in disciplines
▪ Assessment competences
▪ Cultural, social differences (including impact on learning)
▪ Etc.
▪ Teaching skills
▪ Assessment skills
▪ Management skills (e.g. class, information, time, pressure)
▪ Skills in managing different teaching and learning approaches
▪ Communication skills (lecturing, tutoring,
monitoring, giving feedback, etc.)
▪ Interpersonal skills
(networking, teamworking)
▪ Intercultural skills (understanding different cultures, different academic cultures, different
approaches to learning, working with others in different languages, cultures, competences)
▪ Etc.
▪ Empathy and interest in individuals
▪ Motivation (intrinsic, instrumental, utility, etc.)
▪ Patience (under time pressure)
▪ Understanding student learning challenges
▪ Cultural, social, language, academic differences
▪ Etc.
Figure 4: Competences in students and teachers that could be monitored in a quality management system for an internationally profiled EMI programme (not exhaustive). Items in bold are assumed particularly to impact on the quality of the international profile of an EMI programme.
Programme design factors Institutional contextual factors
Management Facilities
▪ Goals: aims and objectives
▪ Design and implementation
▪ Achievement: how to know when the goals are attained
▪ International/ intercultural elements
▪ Exchanges, internships, collaborations
▪ Employability
▪ Language of instruction (code switching, code meshing)
▪ Etc.
▪ Teacher recruitment and staff development
▪ Multilingual / multicultural group composition (nationality, languages, gender, competences)
▪ Group interaction (attention to awareness of individual differences, inclusion/exclusion potential)
▪ Identity building (belonging to academic & cultural community)
▪ Strategies for cooperation
▪ Documentation of outcomes (e.g.
transcripts)
▪ Monitoring, auditing
▪ Etc.
▪ Physical buildings, equipment
▪ Library, ICT
▪ Support systems
▪ Etc.
Figure 5: Factors in programme design and institutional context that could be monitored in a quality management system for an internationally profiled EMI programme (not exhaustive)
6. Conclusion
In this article, I have sketched the background to quality in the contemporary higher education context. Higher education has become a neo-liberal market (e.g. Wilkins 2012), subject to competitive forces, whereby efficiency has a
critical role. Quality is a comparative concept where ranking, benchmarking and outputs are decisive. Quality, however, remains a rather elusive concept, the definition of which depends on who is making it. Because higher education has such a diversity of stakeholders, the manner in which quality can be conceptualized depends primarily which stakeholder or stakeholders are concerned. Quality in the eyes of students will differ from how it is construed by employers. Moreover, a distinction can be made concerning the object of quality management, whether we are concerned with teaching or research, whether it is a question of the institution as a whole or of an individual programme. I have adopted the conceptual model of quality elaborated by Schindler et al. (2015), which depends primarily on the stakeholders concerned and then on four broad conceptualizations of quality that may be sought, before identifying the potential indicators for the chosen conceptualization.
After briefly looking at how quality of higher education is assessed in the Netherlands, I have reviewed the Dutch approach to the quality of internationalization, before delving into the nature and quality of EMI and internationally profiled programmes. The final part looks at aspects and factors that could be measured theoretically to monitor the quality of an internationally profiled EMI programme. I refer here to the work in the project "Developing Quality Management Parameters for International Profiles in Universities of Applied Sciences" (see Studer, this issue). The more numerous and the more finely calibrated the factor (or descriptor), the more unworkable the quality management of programmes become.
Apart from the detail of descriptors used to measure quality, there is a second risk in quality management, the scope of international comparison. The more complex and the more transnational the system, the less it reflects the national culture and national politics (see Stensaker & Gornitzka 2009: 125, who comment on the difficulty of establishing trust across nation states).
Transnational quality management risks distancing itself from what national stakeholders (e.g. taxpayers) may view as quality. What is quality in internationally profiled programme through an additional language may often be an intangible interaction between student, teacher, programme and context.
Quality is the balanced outcome of practices, processes, procedures, expectations, beliefs, attitudes, and values, some of which can be managed.
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3-25.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L.E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO.
Ball, R. & Wilkinson, R. (1994). The use and abuse of performance indicators in UK higher education.
Higher Education, 27, 417-427.
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning.
Higher Education, 41, 221-238.
Coleman, J. (2006). English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language Teaching, 39, 1-14.
Dafouz-Milne, E. & Smit, U. (2014). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37, 397-415.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. (Series: Second language acquisition 24). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dimova, S. & Kling, J. (2015). Lecturers' English proficiency and university language polices for quality assurance. In R. Wilkinson & M. L. Walsh (eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice, (pp. 50-65). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Dochy, F. R. C., Segers, M. S. R. & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (1990). Selecting performance indicators. A
proposal as a result of research. In L. C. J. Goedegebuure, P. A. M. Maassen &
D. F. Westerheijden (eds.), Peer review and performance indicators. Quality assessment in British and Dutch higher education, (pp. 135-153). Utrecht: Lemma.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2013). Future challenges to English-medium instruction at the tertiary level. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster & J.M. Sierra (eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges, (pp. 213-221). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Driessen, E. W., Overeem, K., van Tartwijk, J., van der Vleuten, C. P. M. & Muijtjens, A. M. M. (2006).
Validity of portfolio assessment: Which qualities determine rating? Medical Education, 40, 862-866.
Duru-Bellat, M. (2015). Access to higher education: The French case. Document de travail de l'IREDU/working paper. Dijon: Institut de Recherche sur l'Education. Accessed 31 May 2017.
ECA (European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education) (2015). Frameworks for the assessment of quality in internationalization. The Hague: ECA. Accessed 4 June 2017.
Elton, L. B. (9 November 1987). Warning signs. Times Higher Education Supplement.
ESG (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area (ESG). Brussels: ENQA.
Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education? Concepts, policy and practice. In D. Green (ed.), What is quality in higher education? Concepts, policy and practice, (pp. 2-20). Buckingham: SRHE
& Open University Press. ERIC datafile: ED 415723.
Harvey, L. (2006). Impact of quality assurance: Overview of a discussion between representatives of external quality assurance agencies. Quality in Higher Education, 18, 287-290.
Harvey, L. & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 9-34.
Harvey, L. & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16, 3-36.
Kling, J. & Staehr, L. S. (n.d.). The development of the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff (TOEPAS). University of Copenhagen Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use (CIP). Accessed 4 June 2017.
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam:
Sense.
Leung, C. (2001). English as an additional language: Language focus or diffused curriculum concerns?
Language and Education, 15, 33-55.
